Politics Thread

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Again, ACA is extremely flawed. What you pointed out is correct. However, it's not because young people didn't want to pay for "shitty people", it was because the penalty was cheaper than insurance. The more people made that choice, the more expensive premiums got.

I thought it was pretty much understood that the ACA was flawed. That if all states implemented everything associated with the act that it would have been a lot better, if the Pubs would have allowed the government option that would have also helped.

Scrapping the ACA and heading back to fully private health insurance isn't a solution its going back to a more broken system.

I forget who posted it, but the way insurance works is absolutely funding a system that is there for you. If you are 16, just get on insurance, 2 months later total your car, that insurance should be there for you. You don't just get the amount you put in.

[Caf]

I thought it was pretty much understood that the ACA was flawed. That if all states implemented everything associated with the act that it would have been a lot better, if the Pubs would have allowed the government option that would have also helped.

Scrapping the ACA and heading back to fully private health insurance isn't a solution its going back to a more broken system.

I forget who posted it, but the way insurance works is absolutely funding a system that is there for you. If you are 16, just get on insurance, 2 months later total your car, that insurance should be there for you. You don't just get the amount you put in.

Exactly. The entire point of insurance is "paying for someone else" and vice versa.

[Juice]

Exactly. The entire point of insurance is "paying for someone else" and vice versa.

Yeah but there is a difference between paying for soemeone else who is also paying into it but receives more for whatever his or her health issues may be and those who don't have any skin in the game.

[Caf]

Yeah but there is a difference between paying for soemeone else who is also paying into it but receives more for whatever his or her health issues may be and those who don't have any skin in the game.

You're paying for those people already! You can keep stomping your feet, but the problem will still persist. If you only want to pay for people who have skin in the game, you have to be willing to let people die. That's the only way.

Or, move to a system where everyone has, everyone pays, and costs go down. Tough choice.

[SemajParlor]

So how are we spinning this new one?

[Lloyd Braun]

So how are we spinning this new one?

He's lucky he is alive?

[GoMuskies]

He's lucky he is alive?

It IS pretty amazing Hillary never had him Vincent Fostered.

[Juice]

So how are we spinning this new one?

That this is really a cover up of Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner breaking the law.

[Strange Brew]

See post 1290. But I will spell it out for you. I believe that we, as a society, have an obligation to insure that all members of society have their basic needs met with respect to food, housing, education, and healthcare. These are not Constitutional rights, as I stated in another earlier post, but rather rights as members of our society...entitlements, if you prefer. Now will you answer my question....do you believe that we have an obligation to all members of our society with respect to these basic needs? And if so, what is the basis for your position? And if not, just say so and we will all know exactly where you stand. But if you say yes, know also that you are admitting the bankruptcy in the "access" position taken by House Republicans who are supporting Trumpcare.

Wow, saw the flash from this virtue signal in Denver. Well done. I'll ask YOU a simple question; how much of YOUR income are you willing to pay to achieve your ideal society? 60%? 90%?. I'm curious because you can easily overpay your obligation to the Treasury. Unless you FEEL charity is accomplished though others fulfilling your design for society?

[X-man]

Wow, saw the flash from this virtue signal in Denver. Well done. I'll ask YOU a simple question; how much of YOUR income are you willing to pay to achieve your ideal society? 60%? 90%?. I'm curious because you can easily overpay your obligation to the Treasury. Unless you FEEL charity is accomplished though others fulfilling your design for society?

As usual, you show how little you learned from your econ classes with your post. Charitable giving, like a lot of other things (e.g. a company who on their own limits carbon emissions because of concerns about climate warming), is a "public good" . This means not only can people free ride on the actions of others, but they also get no benefit from their actions unless others do it as well. So no one has any incentive to do what everyone possibly wants. Hence nothing happens even though collectively we may want it to. You may want to "study up" on your economics theory before spouting more nonsense.